Trump Signs Executive Order to Dismantle US Department of Education
Introduction
President Donald Trump signed an executive order to eliminate the Department of Education, marking a significant step toward fulfilling a long-standing campaign promise and conservative goal.
The order, signed on March 20, 2025, directs Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return education authority to the States.”
Historical Context and Conservative Ambitions
The effort to eliminate the Department of Education represents the culmination of a decades-long conservative ambition dating back to the Reagan administration.
When President Ronald Reagan addressed Congress in his 1982 State of the Union speech, he articulated the desire to eliminate what many Republicans considered unnecessary government expenditures through the department’s dissolution.
This goal has remained unfulfilled for 43 years, but Trump’s administration has now taken concrete steps toward making it a reality.
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that has seen many of its “Project 2025” recommendations adopted by the Trump administration, celebrated the move, stating: “It’s a beautiful day to dismantle the Department of Education.”
This sentiment reflects the long-held conservative position that education policy should be determined at the state and local levels rather than by federal authorities.
Constitutional Considerations and State Authority
The executive order aligns with the conservative view that education is fundamentally a state responsibility rather than a federal one. In her statement following the order, Secretary McMahon emphasized: “Education is fundamentally a state responsibility.
Instead of filtering resources through layers of federal red tape, we will empower states to take charge, advocate for, and implement what is best for students, families, and educators in their communities. “
During the signing ceremony at the White House, Trump reiterated this position: “We’re going to return education to the states where it belongs.”
This perspective has resonated with various factions within the Republican Party, including establishment figures, evangelical Christians, and Make America Great Again supporters.
Legal Limitations and Congressional Requirements
Despite the executive order’s sweeping language, eliminating the Department of Education requires congressional approval.
The department, created in 1979 under President Jimmy Carter, cannot be fully shuttered through executive action alone. The process would require legislation passed by Congress, a challenging feat given the current political landscape.
Although Republicans control both chambers of Congress, they would need Democratic support to reach the 60 votes required in the Senate for such legislation to pass.
This bipartisan support seems unlikely, as Democratic lawmakers have strongly opposed the department's dismantling.
Current Actions and Department Reduction
Despite these legislative limitations, the Trump administration has already begun to reduce the department’s size and influence significantly.
Before signing the executive order, Secretary McMahon announced plans to cut the department’s workforce by nearly 50%, describing this as the “first step” toward fulfilling Trump’s mandate.
The administration appears to be pursuing a strategy of making it increasingly difficult for the department to function by starving it of funds and staff, even without formal congressional approval for closure.
This approach has been characterized as part of a “brutal overhaul of the government” that Trump is implementing with the assistance of tech entrepreneur Elon Musk.
Preservation of Essential Programs and Services
Despite the goal of dismantling the department, the administration has stated that certain essential services would be preserved.
During the signing ceremony, Trump assured that critical programs such as Title I funding for schools in low-income areas, resources for students with disabilities, and Pell Grants for college students would be “fully preserved and reassigned to other agencies.”
In her official statement, Secretary McMahon clarified: “Closing the Department does not mean cutting off funds from those who depend on them—we will continue to support K-12 students, students with special needs, college student borrowers, and others who rely on essential programs”.
This suggests that while the administrative structure may change, the administration intends to maintain key educational support systems.
Transfer of Responsibilities
The executive order directs McMahon to facilitate the department’s closure “to the fullest extent” allowed by law while “ensuring the seamless provision of services, programs, and benefits Americans depend on.”
This raises questions about which federal agencies might inherit the department’s various functions.
Some conservative experts have suggested that federal student lending could be transferred to the Treasury Department or Small Business Administration, civil rights functions could move to the Department of Justice, and K-12 funding might shift to the Department of Health and Human Services.
However, such transfers could face legal challenges, as some laws explicitly designate certain functions to be housed within the Department of Education.
Political Reactions and Criticisms
The executive order has elicited strong reactions from both supporters and critics. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer condemned the move as a “tyrannical power grab” and “one of the most destructive and devastating steps Donald Trump has ever taken.”
Education advocates have warned about potential negative consequences, particularly for vulnerable students.
Becky Pringle, President of the National Education Association, cautioned that shuttering the department would result in larger class sizes, eliminating job training programs, and higher college tuition costs.
The president of the National Parents Union, Keri Rodrigues, expressed concern that “the most vulnerable communities would suffer the consequences” and that eliminating the department “would roll back decades of progress, leaving countless children behind.”
Legal Challenges Emerge
The administration’s efforts to reduce the department’s size have sparked lawsuits. A group of 21 Democratic state attorneys general has filed a suit claiming that Trump’s move to eliminate the department is unconstitutional.
This mirrors similar legal challenges to other agency reductions within the administration, such as a federal judge halting attempts to dismantle the US Agency for International Development on constitutional grounds.
Role and Function of the Department of Education
The Department of Education, established in 1979, serves several vital functions in the American education system.
It oversees approximately 100,000 public and 34,000 private schools across the United States. However, more than 85% of public school funding comes from state and local governments rather than federal sources.
The department administers the $1.6 trillion federal student loan program that helps tens of millions of Americans afford college.
It also plays a crucial role in enforcing civil rights protections in educational settings and providing essential funding for low-income schools and students with special needs.
Common Misconceptions
Education policy experts note significant misconceptions about the department’s actual role and authority. Unlike education departments in some other countries, the US Department of Education does not establish national curricula, set enrollment or graduation requirements, or select school materials.
These responsibilities remain with states and local districts, which finance most K-12 education and develop all curricula.
As Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute explains, eliminating the department would not necessarily eliminate the regulations and requirements schools must follow, as “these challenges are embedded in law.”
Significant changes would require actively revising or eliminating the laws governing these programs, not just dismantling the administrative structure.
Potential Impacts and Concerns
Education experts and advocates have raised concerns about the potential impacts of dismantling the department, particularly on vulnerable populations.
Federal funding is “invaluable for low-income schools and students with special needs,” the federal government has been “essential in enforcing key civil rights protections for students.”
Transferring programs like federal student loans to other agencies could create significant complications.
Margaret Morgan, a former deputy secretary for education, warned that “moving loans across systems is extraordinarily challenging” and that relocating them to another agency would be “a colossal undertaking.”
Concerns are that if the transition is not managed effectively, the government could lose track of crucial information, such as the number of payments individuals have made toward loan forgiveness.
Conservative Response to Concerns
Conservative supporters of the move argue that these concerns are overstated. Jonathan Butcher, a senior researcher at the Heritage Foundation, contends that while the initiative aims for greater efficiency and streamlining, “it fundamentally promotes state autonomy. It is a more profound issue than merely financial.”
Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute suggests that “regardless of what transpires with the department and its staffing levels, the effects on students, families, and college attendees are likely to be quite limited,” as the administration does not intend to eliminate significant funding sources for education but rather alter their management.
Conclusion
President Trump’s executive order to dismantle the Department of Education represents a significant step toward fulfilling a long-standing conservative goal of returning educational authority to the states.
While the complete elimination of the department would require congressional approval, which seems unlikely in the current political climate, the administration has already begun to substantially reduce its size and influence.
The move has generated intense reactions from supporters, who see it as rightfully returning education policy to local control, and critics, who warn of potential negative impacts on vulnerable students and the educational system.
As the situation continues to develop, the future of federal involvement in American education remains uncertain. Legal challenges and political resistance are likely to shape the ultimate outcome of this executive action.
